2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-28-2009 

# P eg g y M or r i son v

. C omm S o c i al S ec ur it y P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-3565

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " P e gg y M or r i s on v

. C omm S oc i al S e c ur it y " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 375. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/375NO T PRECEDEN TI AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 3565

P E G G Y J . M O R R IS O N , A ppel l ant

v. M IC H A E L J . A S T R U E , C o m m iss io n e r o f

S o c ial S e c u rity

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D ist ri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 1- 07- cv- 01912 ) D ist ri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le C h ri stop h er C . C o n n er

Subm i t t ed U nder T hi r d C i r cui t L A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober 26, 2009 B efore: S L O V ITE R , F U E N T E S , and H A R D IM A N , C i rcui t Judg es.

( Fi l ed: O ct ober 28, 2009)

____ OP I NI ONW e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uant t o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, fr om 1 t he fi nal or der i s s ued byt he D i s t r i ct C our t . T he D i s t r i ct C our t had ju ri s d ic tio n b a s e d o n 4 2 U .S .C . § § 4 0 1 -3 3 . 2 S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge . I . Pe ggy J . Morr i s on a

ppe a l s fr om

the Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s or de r

a ffi rm i ng the de ni a l by th e A d m in istrativ e L aw Ju d g e (“A L J”) o f M o rriso n ’s ap p licatio nf o r S o cial S ecu rity D isab ility b en ef its. II . Ju d icial rev iew is lim itedto d eterm in in g w h eth er th ere w as sub stan tial ev id en ce to sup p o rt th e C o mm issio n er’s d ecisio n . 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 (g ); Kn epp v. Apfel , 204 F. 3d 78, 83 ( 3d Ci r . 2000) ( c i t i ng Plum mer v . Apfel , 186 F.3d42 2, 42 7 (3dCir. 19 99 )) . Substantia l e vidence i s “ such re le vant evidence a s a re as on able m ind m ight ac ce pt as adequate t o sup po rt

a c on cl usion.” Pi e rc e v . Unde rwood , 4 8 7 U .S . 5 5 2 , 5 6 4 -6 5 (1 9 8 8 ). If the Comm is si on er ’s find ings of fact ar e s up po rt ed by

substantia l e vidence, such f in d in g s are b in d in g . Kne pp , 204 F. 3d at

83. 1 Be c aus e we wr i t e pr i m ar i l y fo r the part i e s , wh o ar e awar e of the r e l e vant

fa c t s , we di s c us s the m

onl y br i e fl y . Morr i s on, who wa s forty - s e ve n ye ar s ol d wi th a12th gr a de educat ion at the ti m e of h er applic at ion f

or disa bili ty benefits , i s c on si dere d a “you ng er p erso n ” u n d er th e S o cial S ecu rity A d m in istratio n(“S S A ”) reg u latio n s. 2 0 C .F .R . § 404. 1563( c ) . He r

pr i or e xpe r i e nc e i nc l ude d work i n food s e rvi c e , a s ac a s hi e r , m a c hi ne3

fa s t e ne r , and hand pa c ka ge r . She wa s l a s t e m pl oy e d on Fe br

uary 14, 2006, a s am a c hi ne o p erato r at a p rin tin g co m p an y . She i ni t i a l l y

fi l e d he r SSA a ppl i c at i on wi th an ons e t

dat e of Fe br

uary 15, 2006 but am e nde d that

t o Oc t obe r

31, 2005, be c aus e of an uns uc c e s s ful work att e m pt i n the i nt e r i m . Morr i s on’ s di s abi l i ty c l a i m i s di r e c t e d pr i m ar i l y

t o he r c l a i m of ba c k i m

pa i rm e nt wh ic h she contends m ee ts or equals § 1 .04 o f the List of Im pair m ents . I f she were co rrect, it w o u ldqu alif

y as a sev ere im

p airm en t. Mo rr is on firs t c on te nd s that the AL J e rr ed in fail ing to f ind that s he had an i m pa i rm e nt s e ve r e e nough t o m e e t

the r e qui r e m e nt s of § 1. 04C of the SSA’ s Li s t i ng Im p airm en ts. S ectio n1 .0 4 C requ ires a d o cu m en tedd iag n o sis o f lu m b ar sp in al sten o sis that r e s ul t s i n an i nabi l i ty

t o am bul at e e ffe c t i ve l y . 20 C. F. R. Pt . 404, Subpt . P, App. 1 § 1 .0 4 C . A lth o u g h th e m ed ical d o cu m en tatio nsh o w s th at M o rriso nw as d iag n o sedw ith lum bar s pinal s te no si s, the ALJ concluded that the im pair m ent did no t r es ult i n h er in ab ility to am b u late ef f ectiv ely , as d ef

in edb y th e reg u latio n s. See 20 C. F. R. Pt . 404, S ub p t. P , A p p . 1 § 1 .0 0 B 2 b (2 ). The pe rt i ne nt

e va l uat i on s hows that

Morr i s on ha d ane gat i ve s tr a i ght l e g- r a i s i ng test, n o rm al stren g th inlo w er ex trem ities, an da n o rm al ran g e o f m o tio n . T h ese ob se rvances ar e further s up po rt ed by the notes m ade by

Dr. Bal int Bal og st at ing that Mo rr is on walked withou t an ass is ti ve device and cou ld “hee l wal k andtoe wal k.” Tr. at 135. Dr . Ba l og a l s o obs e rve d that Morr i s on ha d ane gat i ve s tr a i ght l e g- r a i s i ng t e s t , no4

atroph y in her l ow er

extr em it ie s, no re stri ct ed hip rotat ion andno tr ue neural im ping em ent. Mo re ov er , Dr. Barr y B. Mo ore, Mo rr is on ’s tr eati ng ph y si ci an, noted that M o rriso nh adn o w eakn ess inw alk in g . T h u s, th ere w as sub stan tial m ed ical ev id en ce to sup p o rt th e A L J’s f

in d in g th at M o rriso nd idn o t m eet th e requ irem en ts o f § 1 .0 4 .C . Morr i s on ne xt

c ha l l e nge s the ALJ ’ s fi ndi ng that he r ur i nary i nc ont i ne nc e wa s not a s ever e i m

pair m ent bec ause it

did n ot si gn ific antl y

li m it her from do ing b as ic wo rk activ ity . M o rriso nco rrectly arg u es th at an im

p airm en t w h ich p reclu d es retu rn to p ast relev an t w o rkis a sev ere im p airm en t. See 20 C. F. R. § 404. 1520( b) ( c ) . Howe ve r , the evidence s ho ws that

Mo rr is on ’s incontinence go es back to 20 03 , at a ti m e when she was still p erf o rm in g p ast w o rk . Mor e ove r , no e vi de nc e e xi s t s t o s ugge s t that Morr i s on so u g h t a m ed ical ev alu atio nf ro m a u ro lo g ist, ev en th o u g h sh e claim edsh e w o u ldd o so . Al s o, i n ne i the r

he r t e s t i m ony

nor he r a ppl i c at i on di d Morr i s on de s c r i be any s i gni fi c ant f u n ctio n al lim itatio n s du e to in co n tin en ce, an dsh e p ro v id edn o ev id en ce th at th is c ondi t i on s i gni fi c ant l y

l i m i t e d he r

pe r form anc e of ba s i c a c t i vi t i e s . On a ppe a l , Morr i s on c ont e nds that

s he r e qui r e s c l os e pr oxi m i ty t o abathr oom

y e t s he ne ve r

pr oduc e d any doc um e nt at i on ve r i fyi ng thi s . The bur de n of pr oof l i e s wi th Morr i s on at thi s s t e p of the ev alu atio np ro cess, 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 0 (c), an dh er f ailu re to p ro v id e d o cu m en tatio nis thus fata l t o h er

cl ai m re garding u ri nary

incontinence . T h i r d , M o rr i s o nar g u e s th at th e A L Je rr e di nf

i n d i n g th at

s h e c o u l dp e r f

o rm a li m it ed rang e of light or se dentar y wo rk. As s he po ints ou t, the ALJ so fo un d even5

thou gh Dr. Moo re li m it ed her dai ly wo rk ac ti vity

to fo ur ho urs a

day , a li m it at ion that wo uld p re cl ud e her

from substantia l gai nf

ul ac ti vity . This was no t e rr or, how ever , be c aus e the r e a s on for

the ALJ ’ s fa i l ur e t o c ons i de r s uc h e vi de nc e wa s that

i t c am e i n the form of al e tt e r

fr om Dr . Moor e wr i tt e n on June 20, 2007 - a l m os t two we e ks a ft e r

the AL J had is sued her final deci si on . Evidence that was no t before the AL J c anno t be use d to arg u e th at th e A L J’s d ecisio nw as n o t sup p o rtedb y sub stan tial ev id en ce. Jones v . Sul l i v an , 954 F. 2d 125, 128 ( 3d Ci r . 1991) . F u rth erm o re, f o r th e ad d itio n al ev id en ce to be consider ed afte r the heari ng , i t m ust s at is fy

42 U.S.C. § 4 05 (g), wh ic h require s Morr i s on t o s how that

the e vi de nc e i s ne w, m at e r i a l , and that the r e wa s good c aus e for f ailin g to p ro v id e it p rio r to th e A L J h earin g . Ma tt hews v. Ap

fe l , 239 F. 3d 589, 594 ( 3d Ci r . 2001) . M o rriso nh as f ailedto sh o w h o w D r. M o o re’s letter m et th ese requ irem en ts. Next, Morri son con te nd s that the AL J e rr ed in two w ay s. Firs t, by substi tuti ng her m e di c a l opi ni on for

that of the tr e at i ng phy s i c i an, Dr . Moor e , and, s e c ond, by a c c e pt i ng th e o p in io no f

D r. B alo g o v er th at o f

D r. M o o re. H o w ev er, th e A L J d idn o t sub stitu te he r m e di c a l opi ni on for

that of Dr . Moor e . I ns t e a d, the ALJs i m pl y m a de obs e rvat i ons re garding the ti m e of total inca paci ty afte r the surger

y base d o n the enti re m edic al re cord an dM o rriso n ’s testim o n y o f h er p ain an dlim itatio n s. M o reo v er, M o rriso nm isin terp rets Dr. Moo re ’s es ti m at e that s he wo uld n ee d app roxim at el y two y ears to re cover neurolog ic al fu ncti on to m ean that s he wo uld b e c om plet el y disa bled and u nable t o w ork f o r th at du ratio n . T h e A L J ev alu atedth e p o st-su rg ical n o tes o f D r. M o o re ag ain st6

M o rriso n ’s co m

p lain t an dco n sid eredth e lacko f ad d itio n al d iag n o stic stu d ies in co n clu d in g th at M o rriso nw as o n ly in cap acitatedf

o r ab o u t six w eek s af

ter su rg ery . Rather than being a substi tuti on of the ALJ’s m edic al op inion, this is a finding that was sup p o rtedb y

th e w eig h t o f

th e ev id en ce. Fu rtherm ore, we re

ject Mo rr is on ’s contenti on that the ALJ er

re d b y ac ce pting D r. Ba l og’ s a s s e s s m e nt

ove r that of he r tr e at i ng phy s i c i an. The ALJm ay c ons i de r the op inion o f a source who h as exam ined the c la im ant, and g ive m ore wei gh t t o a m edic al op inion that i s s up po rt ed by re le vant evidence, such as m edic al si gn s or l aborat ory fi nd i ng s . 20 C. F. R. § 4 04 . 15 27 ( d) ( 1) , ( d) ( 3) . No thi ng i n the r e c or d, m or e ov e r , s ho ws that the ALJ affo rded m ore wei gh t t o D r. Balog’s opinion or used it to disc ou nt Dr. Moor e ’ s opi ni on. Ac c or di ngl y , the ALJpr ope r l y c ons i de r e d a l l m e di c a l doc um e nt at i on, in clu d in g D r. B alo g ’s o p in io n , th at w as sup p o rtedb y m ed ical ev id en ce. Fi na l l y , Morr i s on c ont e nds that the ALJe rr e d i n fa i l i ng t o fi nd he r t e s t i m ony c r e di bl e i n r e l at i ng he r

l i m i t at i ons both be for e and a ft e r the s ur ge ry . The ALJm ay not fi nd an i ndi vi dua l di s abl e d ba s e d s ol e l y on hi s or he r s ubje c t i ve c om

pl a i nt s a l one . 20 C.F.R. § 4 04 .152 9(a) . Rather, those c om plai nts m ust be s up po rt ed by

m edic al d o cu m en tatio nto sh o w th at th e in d iv idu al h as an im p airm en t th at co u ldreaso n ab ly p ro du ce th e alleg edp ain o r sy m p to m s. I d. The doc um e nt at i on that Dr . Moor e pr ovi de d, howe ve r , s howe d that

Morr i s on di d not

have ane rve i m

pi nge m e nt

or othe r s our c e for

the num bne s s i n he r

t oe s and that

s he wa s abl e t o wa l k wi thout we akne s s . I n l i ght

of the7

m edic al re cord, the AL J did no t e rr by dete rm ining that t

he evidence did not supp ort M o rr i s o n ’ s t e s t i m o n y. II I. A f ter rev iew in g th e reco rd , w e co n clu d e th at th e D istrict C o u rt d idn o t err in h o ld in g th at th e d ecisio no f th e A L J w as sup p o rtedb y sub stan tial ev id en ce. We w ill th eref o re af f irm th e d ecisio no f

th e D istrict C o u rt.